If I had a new version - like the nordic, Europe etc. must I come to GOW or go to the designer for permission to produce it. Or do I come with the idea and sell that only or do I pay royalties? As my wish is to see my version produced.

If I had a new version - like the nordic, Europe etc. must I come to GOW or go to the designer for permission to produce it. Or do I come with the idea and sell that only or do I pay royalties? As my wish is to see my version produced.

Days of Wonder owns all rights to the Ticket to Ride game and variants and only we can authorize a commercial version to be published. We do not allow others to sell their own versions or variants of the game and doing so would violate our copyrights and trademarks. We have allowed others to create and even post their own variants and maps, but only with the understanding that it not be for any commercial use or widespread distribution. Also, we do not publish Ticket to Ride variants or maps created by anyone other than the game's author, Alan Moon.

I am so tired of people being outraged that I would block them (yes a clear intentional block)that I would like to see a "blocking OK" in the setup screen. The opposite (no blocking) is unenforceable but at least it would be a clear announcement that blocking may occur in this game so beware. Or perhaps it could be one of the filters.

I would like to see an option to turn off the option to boot inactive players automatically in private matches. I say this because I play online with a select group of friends sometimes when I am at work. However, the nature of my work is such that I am unpredictably interrupted. I am quite tired of losing Karma because the game boots me. Often when I get done with a call I can hop back in the game and resume, and the people I am playing with understand that. Retaining an option to manually boot players in private matches would not be a bad idea though.

Please allow players to think about the tickets they want to keep or discard during other players' turns.

The normal response is "but then your decision might be affected by their plays". So I suggest the following: don't show their turns while you're thinking. Freeze the board, put a grey fade effect over it, and don't show any commentary or card updates until you decide. Then once you decide, update the board to its current state.

Please allow players to think about the tickets they want to keep or discard during other players' turns.

The normal response is "but then your decision might be affected by their plays". So I suggest the following: don't show their turns while you're thinking. Freeze the board, put a grey fade effect over it, and don't show any commentary or card updates until you decide. Then once you decide, update the board to its current state.

But even the number of tickets you decide to keep, might just influence the play of your opponent, so he/she will want to know the outcome of that before making that next move!

But even the number of tickets you decide to keep, might just influence the play of your opponent, so he/she will want to know the outcome of that before making that next move!

That's technically true, but I don't think it will have any detrimental effect on gameplay. I can't imagine it being abused, and of course the effect is completely equal on all players. To be honest, I'm not even sure what I would do with the information. Perhaps late in the game if I saw someone had retained 3 tickets, I would be more likely to think that they were now in a strong position...

Lastly, in any case I think it should be the prerogative of the other players to say "actually I'd like you to choose your tickets before I play". I think in most cases, people will favour speedy gameplay.

This topic actually reminds me of a question I've always wondered about: when choosing your tickets, does anyone actually consider the colors of the 4 cards already in his/her hand? Or do 4 cards simply constitute too small a data pool from which to make your ticket decisions?

Personally, I rarely even notice the 4 colors in my hand when I'm making my ticket selections. And, even if I did notice, it would be a rare case in which those colors affected my decision. But I can certainly imagine a scenario in which, if I did pay attention, those 4 cards could plausibly affect my decision. For instance, if 3 of your 4 cards are locos, maybe you take that third ticket, instead of keeping just 2.

This topic actually reminds me of a question I've always wondered about: when choosing your tickets, does anyone actually consider the colors of the 4 cards already in his/her hand? Or do 4 cards simply constitute too small a data pool from which to make your ticket decisions?

Personally, I rarely even notice the 4 colors in my hand when I'm making my ticket selections. And, even if I did notice, it would be a rare case in which those colors affected my decision. But I can certainly imagine a scenario in which, if I did pay attention, those 4 cards could plausibly affect my decision. For instance, if 3 of your 4 cards are locos, maybe you take that third ticket, instead of keeping just 2.

I usually only take my hand into account when choosing tickets during the endgame, when I have to calculate what I am able to accomplish before the game ends.

This might have come up a few times before, but I was wondering why you can't enter a limit to someone's score. Say, only players over 1300. Or 1400, 1500, etc. And the other way around, no players over 1200 for example. 1500+ players tend to have a very different way of playing then 1000+ players. Beginners might prefer not to play games against the very highest of the ranks.

Lots of games are called '1300+' or something like that. Its seems to be generally accepted to put criteria like that in your game's name. I myself like to sometimes play games against the higher scores, and sometimes make is open to anyone. But there's a lot of people who either dont know about the score-system, or don't care, and give it a try anyway. When I start a 1300+ game (I myself being a 1400+ player) sometimes I get at least 8 or 9 far below 1300 entering before I get a 1300+ player. I used always explain nicely what 1300+ meant, and then give them a chance to leave. But in the end, I was explaining and waiting for players to leave more of the time then I was actually playing. It just took too much time, so now I just kick them out. But thats not nice either, caus some players really dont know what 1300+ means. And I can imagen if you are new at TtR-online it doesnt come of nicely if you are kicked out of several games, not knowing why.

In the end it seems to me that with the power to kick people out of your own games it is already a fact that players can choose which scores they wanna play. I think it would save misunderstandings, irritation, and time if we just got the option to select a limit that will permit only players with certain scores to enter.

1) Some keyboard shortcuts would be convenient. For instance, [1]-[5] to pick up cards 1-5, [D] to draw from the deck.

2) AIs should play faster. Sometimes there's a long pause before they pick up their next card, and I feel this delay is at least partially artificially extended to make it appear the AI is thinking.

3) If there's enough space in the UI, the program can show the cards the AI picked up in their last turn. The game is slow enough that I often go do something else until I hear the signal to move again, but then I miss what the AI did.

My request would be that I don't want to see games created by players I have put on ignore on the Open Tables list. If this is not implemented to be done automatically, at the very least add a checkbox to activate that on the "Filters" pulldown.

I would think this would be welcome by anyone who uses ignore. If you have a person on ignore, that means IMO you don't want to play with them. Occassionally I join a game of someone I have on ignore & before I can leave, they have started ... so either I have to play a game with a person I have already told your software I don't want to play, or I get bad karma for leafing.

And going the other way -- don't show a game if that player has ME on ignore -- would seem to be even more a no-brainer. It's not really an "Open Table game" for me if I'm not allowed to join, is it?

I'd think these changes would be non-controversial as far as interface, the only impediment I would imagine would be either development cost or perhaps a bit of load on server because building the open table game list would require joining to the ignore list on the query for each user (though perhaps this overhead could be mostly eliminated by doing it browser side).

1. Add user info to room where game begins (as opposed to merely in-game and in the lobby). It seems, at least to me, much more useful there so you could decide if you wanted to begin the game with that person (amongst other things).

2. If you look at game titles, the two things people want are either (a) a minimum point total to get in or (b) "fast." Thus: (a) Allow users to create custom game rules (for example, minimum score to get in the game, minimum # tickets before going out); and (b) Add option for an in-game timer [similar to chess (either per turn or total game or both)].

3. Even if the timer is not being used, after a certain amount of time the bot should take over. Currently if someone doesn't/won't play their turn and I decide to leave, I am punished via karma points.

4. Furthermore, no one really cares about karma points in and of itself (only to choose whether to play a person or not), so there is no real disincentive to stalling or just quitting a game and the person who would have won is ultimately penalized (by not gaining points). So provide a real disincentive. An example would be losing actual points, not karma points. The main reason people quit is to not lose points, so if you make it where if they quit they do lose at least some points, then they may may not quit in the first place and instead stay and try to win. However, to not be to strict, perhaps not have that system kick in until a minimum of like 5 turns.

5. Add tournaments. Online poker provides a good model (minus the gambling, of course). Each player could wage X amount of points, and 1st place would take the 66.6% and 33.3% to 2nd place (there are countless ways to set up point allocation).

6. You could also allow users to wage points won/lost in regular games, while keeping the current system as the default.

10. Be able to view games you are not playing in (essentially creating an audience). This would be especially appealing in tournaments so you could see how it turns out if you get knocked out. Because some may not like the idea, have it as an option that could be turned on or off by the game/tournament creator.

1) Please show the players' score when joining a game so you can try and pick a similarly skilled player.

2) Add a match-making system that automatically puts together similarly skilled players who are waiting for a game.

3) Improve the Hall of Fame so you can easily jump to your own score, see the total number of players, jump to the end. It would help if each time next page was pressed that it loaded more players at once (like 500).

4) Make the AI more competitive, like it is in the XBox 360 version of Settlers of Catan. I don't think Ticket to Ride is much more complex then Settlers of Catan. And yes, I understand that making a competitive AI is challenging even for relatively simple games.

-In the lobby, when you tap on a game, it only shows the player names in the popup that opens. It should show their ratings as well. Names alone doesn't really mean anything.

-Automatch would be a very welcome addition.

-Move the "it's your turn" text to somewhere else so that it doesn't obstruct the routes in the bottom.

-The AI players should perform a bit better. I don't understand why you needed to create a dedicated AI for each map in order to make them play a little bit better. TTR is a simple game, and even though it is based on luck, you could still have designed a competitive AI just by using some basic probability and statistics, without hardcoding anything about the maps themselves. I have seen much more complex games that have way better performing AI players(Carcassonne is a perfect example).

All games by default being "hide cards". Why peaople watching your game would need see your cards anyway? Unless they want to give you a tip about your opponent route

NO

Awful idea that the default would be based on the idea that people cheat.
I like to watch matches and to identify with at least one player: what would i do if i had these tickets and these colours etc.

Possibly already in this wishlist somewhere is that you could actually choose who to watch (rather than the default of watching the highest ranked player), but definitely would like to be able to see everything!

Possibly already in this wishlist somewhere is that you could actually choose who to watch (rather than the default of watching the highest ranked player)

Yes, that's there in some wishlists for a while ...

As the discussion always comes back, let me try to explain it once more:

We already have the possibility to decide between open, buddies only and hide cards.
Only problem is, that the opener of the games decides which option to use (and the option applies to the game and not to the player who selects it), but the higher ranked player is the one who is watched.
Give the option to choose whom you want to watch, then everyone can decide by whom he wants to be watched.

I'd love to see local (i.e., same computer) multiplayer on the Steam version. Now that Windows 8 has tablets and touch screen laptops (regardless of what you think of the current offerings), it'd be great to have a pass-n-play feature.

Actually, it was one of the reasons I decided to spend a little extra to get a touch screen laptop...then I realized the Steam version is missing the feature =(.

I applaud DoW for being one of the few to make their own versions of their games and port them between systems, but I'd still love the pass-n-play. Thanks!

Hello, I would like to information are planned if further cards, special interest I had in the Märklin version, Germany, Scandinavia and Africa. I would buy both Steam (there alone by myself and my friends 3 times) and iPad

What about an option to play "async games"? Since this is a turned based game, it lends itself perfectly for this? Sure games would take longer, but it might be a good addition to a great game so far?

-Eric

Actually, Days of Wonder has explained that TTR is not a good candidate for Async games because so many of the turns are so minor (drawing cards and such) that it would be totally boring. So they won't be adding that feature to the game.

DoW needs to combine the 3 different iOS versions of this game into one version with in-app purchases. It is ridiculous to have to buy 3 different versions of the app in order to play on both your iPhone and iPad. It is also ridiculous that someone on the iPhone can't play with someone using the iPad version of the app. DoW needs to get it together on this.

What about an option to play "async games"? Since this is a turned based game, it lends itself perfectly for this? Sure games would take longer, but it might be a good addition to a great game so far?

-Eric

Actually, Days of Wonder has explained that TTR is not a good candidate for Async games because so many of the turns are so minor (drawing cards and such) that it would be totally boring. So they won't be adding that feature to the game.

But that's a very weird explanation considering that async is available in the iOS pocket versions ( but not the ipad versions).

Async works really well as a gaming experience for TTR. Just play lots of games at the same time. It is not boring in the slightest.

What about an option to play "async games"? Since this is a turned based game, it lends itself perfectly for this? Sure games would take longer, but it might be a good addition to a great game so far?

-Eric

Actually, Days of Wonder has explained that TTR is not a good candidate for Async games because so many of the turns are so minor (drawing cards and such) that it would be totally boring. So they won't be adding that feature to the game.

But that's a very weird explanation considering that async is available in the iOS pocket versions ( but not the ipad versions).

Async works really well as a gaming experience for TTR. Just play lots of games at the same time. It is not boring in the slightest.

Hmm. Maybe Async will be added to the iPad version in the future. I was not aware that this feature had been added to the pocket versions of the game. I'm glad to hear it's not too boring!